Can God Know Future Freewill Choices?

Sketo

Well-known member
A miracle. An open future is unknowable. So a miracle covers it. God's foreknowledge is not grounded in cause in either direction.

Calling it “A miracle” does not “cover it”. You could have just as easily called it “A mystery” but neither one removes the illogical problem.

Its simply a cop out so you don’t have to justify your illogical view… so you can have your cake and eat it to.

It’s still a problem… you just swept it under the rug.

 

fltom

Well-known member
And what the necessity was, is defined in the context. Basically Paul pulling rank on him and insisting he take the save back.

And it's absurd to claim that would remove his free will in the libertarian sense.
It is absurd to claim determinism is not contrary to free will

free will
[ˌfrē ˈwil]

NOUN
  1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
It is absurd to claim determinism is not contrary to free will

free will
[ˌfrē ˈwil]

NOUN
  1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Your assertion above, even if it were true, would not be evidenced AT ALL in this passage, that has nothing to do with determined.

As I just demonstrated in the last post, the passage has nothing to do with libertarian free will and determinism. Most anyone on your own side would admit that.
 

fltom

Well-known member
Then you have brought in an unjustified 3rd party that determines both Gods knowing and man’s doing…

Gods knowledge must be grounded in something…

What is the thing that solidifies God’s knowledge and man’s doing
Far from it

How in the world stating God knowing what someone might do includes knowing what they might not do bring in a third party

That doesn't even make sense
 

fltom

Well-known member
Your assertion above, even if it were true, would not be evidenced AT ALL in this passage, that has nothing to do with determined.

As I just demonstrated in the last post, the passage has nothing to do with libertarian free will and determinism. Most anyone on your own side would admit that.
Wrong

Determinism makes things necessary

and you just ignored the dictionary

and what the translations show
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Wrong

Determinism makes things necessary

and you just ignored the dictionary

and what the translations show

Only determinism makes things absolutely necessary.

Paul was not remotely claiming that his pulling rank and insisting philemon do the right thing would render it absolutely necessary. Again that would be absurd.

And it is only in this absolute sense of necessary would your argument work.

This is not about Paul applying "determinism to philemon to force him to take the slave, verses voluntary".

We both know whethwr philemon took the slave back because of following Paul's authorities command, versus "freely" it would still be a libertarian free will choice according to most anyone e who advocated LFW.


Most every word has a semantic range of meanings, the word "necessary" is no different , it has range of meaning. You are conflating the deterministic absolute since of necessary with the every day "its necessary I follow orders". The latter is on no way necessary in the absolute sense.
 
Last edited:

Kampioen

Well-known member
Calling it “A miracle” does not “cover it”. You could have just as easily called it “A mystery” but neither one removes the illogical problem.

Its simply a cop out so you don’t have to justify your illogical view… so you can have your cake and eat it to.

It’s still a problem… you just swept it under the rug.

A mystery implies a causal connection that we don't know. But their is no causal connection. Thus it is a miracle that an open future matches foreknowledge.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Calling it “A miracle” does not “cover it”. You could have just as easily called it “A mystery” but neither one removes the illogical problem.

Its simply a cop out so you don’t have to justify your illogical view… so you can have your cake and eat it to.

It’s still a problem… you just swept it under the rug.

To be fair we all appeal to mystery at some point.

We can't explain how God's word exerts power. By what mechanism?
 

David1701

Well-known member
To be fair we all appeal to mystery at some point.

We can't explain how God's word exerts power. By what mechanism?
It's not the word itself, but God, exerting his power through his word. If we hear the word, but it's not accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit, then it does not save us, although it does accomplish other purposes.

Is. 55:10,11 (WEB)
10 For as the rain comes down and the snow from the sky,
and doesn’t return there, but waters the earth,
and makes it grow and bud,
and gives seed to the sower and bread to the eater;

11 so shall my word be that goes out of my mouth:
it shall not return to me void,
but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing I sent it to do.

1 Thess. 1:3-5
(MKJV)
3 remembering without ceasing your work of faith and labor of love and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father,
4 knowing, beloved brothers, your election of God.
5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit,
and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.
 

fltom

Well-known member
Only determinism makes things absolutely necessary.

Absolutely yes

but even relative necessity is contrary to free will

thus the bible rejects any force, or compulsion, constraint or necessity

(ARV 2005) but without thy mind I would do nothing, that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(ASV-2014) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Anderson) but, without your consent, I was not willing to do any thing, that your good deed might not be as a matter of necessity, but one of free-will.
(ASV) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(FAA) but I did not want to do anything without your opinion, so that your good deed would not be as it were under compulsion, but of free will.
(GDBY_NT) but without your consent I did not wish to do anything; in order that your good might not be by constraint, but by the free will:
(GW) Yet, I didn't want to do anything without your consent. I want you to do this favor for me out of your own free will without feeling forced to do it.
(LEB) But apart from your consent, I wanted to do nothing, in order that your good deed might be not as according to necessity, but according to your own free will.
(MRC) but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness might not be by necessity, but of your own free will.
(MNT) But without your consent I was unwilling to do anything, so that your kindness to me might be of your own free will, and not of compulsion.
(NTVR) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Revised Standard ) but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will.
(RNT) but without your consent I am unwilling to do anything, so that your goodness may not be of necessity but of free will.
(RSV-CE) but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will.
(TLV) But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent, so that your goodness wouldn’t be by force but by free will.
(WEB) But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(WEB (R)) But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Wuest's) Georgia;;14-16 But I came to a decision in my heart to do nothing without your consent, in order that your goodness might not be as it were by compulsion but of your own free will.
(NASB77) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness should not be as it were by compulsion, but of your own free will.
(NASB95) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.
(ERV) 14 but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(NHEB) 14 But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(TCE) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.
CT 14 but I would not do any thing without thy consent, that the benefit derived from thee might not be as it were forced, but of free will.NENT 14 but without thy: mind I wished to do nothing; that thy: goodness be not as of necessity, but of free will.
SLT 14 But without thy judgment I would do nothing; that good might not be as according to necessity, but according to free will.
(NEB) 14 But I would rather do nothing without your consent, so that your kindness may be a matter not of compulsion, but of your own free will.
(REB) 14 But I would rather do nothing without your consent, so that your kindness may be a matter not of compulsion, but of your own free will.
(EOB) 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent: your goodness should not be forced, but of free will.





Paul was not remotely claiming that his pulling rank and insisting philemon do the right thing would render it absolutely necessary. Again that would be absurd.

No ther idea that Paul might employ constraint or means to enforce ut is not absurd

As was stated

You have ignored the translations

the definition

free will
[ˌfrē ˈwil]

NOUN
  1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

    Now I will show the same from the church Fathers




  2. “But, you say, God ought to have made us at first so that we should not have thought at all of such things. You who say this do not know what is free-will, and how it is possible to be really good; that he who is good by his own choice is really good; but he who is made good by another under necessity is not really good, because he is not what he is by his own choice.

    Pseudo-Clement of Rome, “The Clementine Homilies,” in Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, the Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages (ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe; trans. Thomas Smith; vol. 8; The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 8286.



    CHAP. LXVII

    I do not understand how Celsus should deem it of advantage, in writing a treatise against us, to adopt an opinion which requires at least much plausible reasoning to make it appear, as far as he can do so, that “the course of mortal things is the same from beginning to end, and that the same things must always, according to the appointed cycles, recur in the past, present, and future.” Now, if this be true, our free-will is annihilated. For if, in the revolution of mortal things, the same events must perpetually occur in the past, present, and future, according to the appointed cycles, it is clear that, of necessity, Socrates


    Origen, “Origen against Celsus,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe; trans. Frederick Crombie; vol. 4; The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 4527.


    The Stoics, not observing this, maintained that all things take place according to the necessity of fate. But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed.

    Justin Martyr, “The Second Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe; vol. 1; The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 1190.


And it is only in this absolute sense of necessary would your argument work.

Wrong i have already shown that any force or compulsion or contraint is contrary to a fre will source

Three different sources Definition of free wil, Scripture, writing of the church fathers have all spoke contrary to your view
 

Sketo

Well-known member
To be fair we all appeal to mystery at some point.

I agree… but the part we do know, of a valid mystery, does not include logical fallacies.

If the 1% we do know includes a logical fallacy… revealing the other 99% does not fix it. The fallacy would still remain in the 100%. It still has to be dealt with.

We can't explain how God's word exerts power. By what mechanism?

Where is the logical fallacy in the part we do know? If there is not one then you are comparing apples to oranges.

Is it possible for God to create another non created God like himself? No.

Can it be accepted by simply calling it a “mystery” or “miracle”? No.

Why, because it would be a logical fallacy, and no amount of new information revealed can change this. The other 99% would not include this fallacy.
 
Last edited:

fltom

Well-known member
I agree… but the part we do know, of a valid mystery, does not include logical fallacies.

If the 1% we do know includes a logical fallacy… revealing the other 99% does not still include the fallacy in the 100%.



Where is the logical fallacy in the part we do know? If there is not one then you are comparing apples to oranges.

Is it possible for God to create another non created God like himself?

Can it be accepted by simply calling it a “mystery” or “miracle”? No.

Why because it would be a logical fallacy, and no amount of new information revealed can change this. The other 99% would not include this fallacy.
???

Is it possible for God to create another non created God like himself?

What has this contrary statement to do with God creating man with a limited free will
 

Sketo

Well-known member
???

Is it possible for God to create another non created God like himself?

What has this contrary statementr to do with God creating man with a limited free will

If by “freewill” you mean something other than God is in Ultimate control of anything then…

Both are logically impossible. And calling them a miracle, or mystery, does not fix it.

But if by “freewill” you are referring to something other than God then this may be logical and biblical. Depends on your reference point.

Man’s will free in reference to God is unjustifiable and illogical.
 
Top